As the man in charge of developing Russia’s vast Arctic north, Aleksey Chekunkov faces more climate-related challenges than most, from permafrost sink holes to the emergence of West Nile fever in frozen tundra. Yet he’s no eco-warrior when it comes to fossil fuels. “We have to be realistic, we are the largest country in the world,” the minister for development of the Arctic and Far East said in a video interview, projecting a 30-year future for natural gas as a mobile, clean alternative to coal. “Solar is not an option for the Arctic region and wind energy isn’t constant.”
Chekunkov’s approach reflects a Russian dilemma: Seen from Moscow, the melting of the polar ice cap is as much economic opportunity as natural disaster, opening the Northern Sea Route from Asia to Europe for shipping and creating access to potentially vast new reserves of minerals, oil and gas.
More broadly, of the bigger geopolitical players — China, the European Union, India, Russia and the U.S. — none risks as much from a successful transition from fossil fuels, if that should happen. Few are as dubious that it will.
“We also know how that’s working out,” President Vladimir Putin said of the transition, during a video call in early March with Russia’s coal industry bosses in which he called for increased exports to Asia. “Texas is frozen and the wind turbines there had to be heated in ways that are a long way from being environmentally friendly. Maybe that will lead to some corrections, too.”
License to Emit
Russia’s CO2 emissions in millions of tons versus targets, 1990-2030
Carbon Action Tracker
Note: All targets are upper bounds of a range; 2019-2030 emissions are estimates based on current policies, from post-Covid base.
Putin built his centralized political system and Russia’s post-Soviet revival as an “energy superpower” around tight control of state companies and their revenues. Entire regions are dependent on coal or oil for jobs and the social infrastructure that companies still maintain, a legacy of the Soviet era.